Law, like history, comes full circle

Today, half a century later, two other school districts - one in Seattle and
another in Louisville, Ky. - have now come before the U.S. Supreme Court
echoing what was the Little Rock School District's chief argument in 1958.
Only this time it is white students who must be discriminated against in
order to preserve the "educational quality" and stability of these school
districts.

Because, it is argued, if white students are allowed into the schools of
their choice, and which they would have every right to attend if they
weren't the wrong color, then these school districts would soon be
re-segregated and the quality of education lowered unacceptably.

It is still assumed that, by some mysterious process of osmosis, educational
quality emanates from the presence of white children in the classroom. And
if they were removed from the largely black schools they've been assigned
to, their black classmates would suffer unjustly, even unconstitutionally.

Whether this argument is called racism or classism or just realism, it still
places the interest and desires of the school district, the group, the
"community," above the rights of individual students. Just as Little Rock's
appeal did in 1958. The only difference is that this time the kids being
discriminated against on account of their race are white.

There was a time, back in the '50s and '60s, when a legally enforced system
of racial segregation had to be broken up. Back then, this numbers game
played with black and white chips may have been relevant. It showed, by the
numbers, whether Jim Crow education was really being ended.

But half a century after Brown v. Board of Education, the game grows less
and less relevant-or useful.

Just imagine if all the futile effort and expense put into this endless
litigation had been invested in improving education for all. That is,
invested in innovations like vouchers, charter schools, individual tracking
of students, merit pay for teachers, basic accountability. Š Would many of
us care about the color of the child next to ours in school if both were
getting a first-rate education?

While listening to the attorneys and justices arguing this case - what a
useful innovation C-SPAN is! - what struck me was how little had changed
since 1968. But this time it was the "liberal" justices of the court like
Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg who were arguing in favor of racial
discrimination in order to achieve some loftier goal, like educational
quality and community stability.

Once again a curious reversal has taken place, and things have come full
circle.